Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Hello! I'm Jason, Dr. Judi's son. I do occasional technical work on her blog so I have the access to sneak in as a guest writer while while she's busy healing. She knows nothing about this; hopefully she'll forgive my intrusion.

I invite you to consider being a part of Dr. Judi's Dream Team.

My mother, Dr. Judi, is a very busy woman. She spends an incredible amount of her time and her heart on healing people. She knows the trust that people put in her and works hard to be an excellent doctor so she can help her clients. This includes spending more time with clients than most doctors, staying on the cutting edge of medical advances so that she can offer the best solutions, and being open to proven solutions, whether or not they fit within the current culture of medicine.

In doing this Dr. Judi has developed a strong reputation for success with difficult-to-diagnose and chronic conditions. Client after client with problems like diabetes, fibromyalgia, autism, environmental illnesses, and anxiety disorders have experienced real relief through her work. But you already know this—that's why you read this blog.

What you may not be aware of, is that she has also discovered a variety of barriers to healing deeply entrenched in the traditional medical establishment. Barriers that she has had to work through herself in order to reach the level of success that she has. Barriers like compartmentalized specialization, a lack of awareness of the heavy impact of emotions on health, and a focus on isolated data rather than on whole people.

Dr. Judi really wants to change this. Because of her success, she has so many more people that want to see her than she has time to see. Her waiting list for appointments is often months long. She just doesn't have enough time herself to see them all.

For over a decade, Dr. Judi has been steadily working on a private dream, a vision of starting a Medical School/Healing Center. This Medical School/Healing Center would be designed to remove these barriers from the medical establishment and to create healing opportunities for many more people than she can treat herself. By shifting medical education's focus from rote memorization and intense competition to results-based healing, she can plant the seeds for a generation of doctors that connect with their patients as a rule, rather than as an exception. By exposing students to global medical research, she can open their eyes to astounding results that are being achieved in other countries. Yes, this would also be a research school, applying hard numbers and statistics using cutting edge methods like Active Control Study Design to alternative medicine to see what is a real opportunity, and what is snake oil.

Dr. Judi had an opportunity to test out part of her vision while she was an Area Medical Representative for the LDS Church in South America. A number of missionaries for the LDS Church were ending their proselyting early because of mental, emotional, and physical health issues. They couldn't find help out in the mission field, so they were returning home for medical treatment, with varying degrees of success. Dr. Judi (Hermana Moore at the time) was living in a hostel near the LDS Temple in the area, and began a program of having missionaries with significant health issues stay there at the hostel where she could work on an intense, whole person healing program with them, for a period of a few days to several weeks. After her program started, the number of missionaries going home because of unsuccessful medical care dropped drastically. Almost without fail, every missionary that went through her program was able to successfully complete their proselyting commitment.

Dr. Judi isn't unfamiliar with teaching in medical schools. A few years after she graduated from medical school herself, she was asked to return to that same school to teach other students. And she has served on the Utah Licensing Board of Osteopathic Physicians, the licensing body that determines who is and is not qualified for a D.O. medical license in the State of Utah.

This isn't just some vague desire. Over the past decade, Dr. Judi has met with a variety of people who have wanted to fund her project. She was approached by Utah Valley University officials (when it was UVSC) to see whether it would work to open the school in association with the university. She has been in negotiations with a number of people on purchasing land to start the school. She has contact with experienced, qualified professionals that want to teach at her school.

Unfortunately, my mother doesn't have the time to work on all these projects. To write business plans and proposals, to manage a non-profit entity that would head up the project. To raise funds and negotiate real estate purchases and establish marketing strategies. All of her time is taken up healing her clients.

Dr. Judi needs a team of experienced, qualified people that see the incredible possibilities that lie in her vision, her dream, and are willing to step in and pick up a part of the load to make it happen. People who have had success creating big projects from the ground up. People who see the need for change and growth in the medical establishment, and who are ready to take action to make it happen.

Dr. Judi knows what needs to be done. But she can't do it herself. You, however, may have the experience, the skills, the contacts to move her vision forward. Or you may know someone who does. Are you interested in being a part of Dr. Judi's Dream Team?

Sunday, September 12, 2010

If you are taking a statin drug to prevent heart disease even though your cholesterol levels may be normal, think again.

The following is quoted from Family Practice News, Volume 40, Issue 12, Pages 10-11 (July 2010):

Studies Dispute Statins Benefits for Prevention

The only large clinical trial to find that statins reduce mortality in patients taking them for primary prevention—a group that comprises 75% of statin users—was so seriously flawed that its conclusions were termed “clinically inconsistent” and invalid by one group of researchers and “extreme and exaggerated” by another, according to separate reports.

In the first critique of the 2008 JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention) trial, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril of Université Joseph Fourier and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble, France, and his associates, analyzed the methods and findings of this only major study to claim that rosuvastatin produced a striking decrease in mortality in low-risk patients who have no evidence of coronary heart disease. These findings, which immediately provoked controversy, “have undoubtedly propelled many healthy persons without elevated cholesterol levels onto long-term statin treatment,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his colleagues said.

First among its major flaws, JUPITER was terminated early and apparently without proper justification according to the study's own protocol prespecifications. Early termination, a practice confined largely to industry-sponsored trials, tends to introduce biases that exaggerate the benefit and minimize the long-term harm of the treatment being assessed, according to the researchers. In this case, it also meant that the study was stopped just as mortality curves between the statin group and the control group had begun to converge, “suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared” if follow-up had not been prematurely terminated, they wrote.

The main justification for terminating JUPITER was explained as an “unequivocal reduction in cardiovascular mortality” with statin therapy. Yet the JUPITER investigators did not include data on cardiovascular mortality in their published report. Readers would have to infer this result by extrapolating from data on a table. When examined closely, however, that data showed identical cardiovascular mortality between the treatment groups.

“Such a lack of effect on cardiovascular mortality [together] with a strong effect on nonfatal complications strongly suggests a bias in the data set and should have led to the continuation of the trial rather than to its premature ending,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his colleagues asserted.

Second, the ratio of fatal to nonfatal MI was so low as to be “incredible.” In particular, the case-fatality rate in the placebo group was only 8% when it would be expected to be about 50%, “a clinical inconsistency that suggests a major flaw in the study.” Moreover, the case-fatality rate with rosuvastatin was 29%, which implies that the “beneficial” drug actually tripled the case-fatality rate, they noted.

Third, JUPITER failed to explain why a strikingly high number of deaths—19 of 31 deaths in the rosuvastatin group and 25 of 37 deaths in the placebo group—were attributed to cardiovascular causes other than MI or stroke. Proponents of the JUPITER study argued after its publication that this referred to causes “such as aneurysm rupture.”

“Would this mean that in the same period of time there were 6 fatal infarctions and 25 fatal aneurysm ruptures in the placebo group? This is highly unlikely,” Dr. de Lorgeril and his associates said.

JUPITER also failed to report data on sudden cardiac deaths, which is surprising given that this is “the simplest and most reliable diagnosis in cardiology” and that it usually comprises 65%-70% of total cardiac mortality. “The way sudden cardiac death is reported—or not reported—may be a good indicator of the quality of the methods used in a trial,” they noted.

Equally important to these methodological flaws, the JUPITER trial involved several conflicts of interest.

“It was conducted by a sponsor with obvious commercial interests. Nine of 14 authors of the JUPITER article have financial ties to the sponsor. The principal investigator has a personal conflict of interest as a co-holder of the patent for the C-reactive protein test” that figured prominently in the rationale for statin therapy.

In addition, the monitoring board that made the decision to halt the trial early was chaired by an investigator who “has been and still is involved in many other industry-sponsored lipid-lowering trials,” Dr. de Lorgeril and colleagues said (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170:1,032-6).

“In conclusion, the results of the JUPITER trial are clinically inconsistent and therefore should not change medical practice or clinical guidelines.” Given that all 12 of the other large cholesterol-lowering trials conducted so far have failed to show any benefit from statins as primary prevention, it appears that “the presumed preventive effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs have been considerably exaggerated,” they said.

In the second study, Dr. Kausik K. Ray of the University of Cambridge (England) and his associates performed a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects on all-cause mortality of statins versus a placebo or control therapies on all-cause mortality. They restricted their analysis to data on high-risk patients with no known cardiovascular disease and included previously unpublished data, “to provide the most robust information to date” on statins as primary prevention in this patient group.

The meta-analysis involved 65,229 men and women in predominantly Western populations, with approximately 244,000 person-years of follow-up. There were 2,793 deaths during an average of 4 years of follow-up.

All-cause mortality was not significantly different between patients taking statins and those taking placebo or control therapies. This suggests that “the all-cause mortality reduction of 20% reported in JUPITER is likely to be an extreme and exaggerated finding, as often occurs when trials are stopped early,” Dr. Ray and his colleagues said (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010;170;1024-31).

This meta-analysis shows that statin therapy as primary prevention in high-risk patients is less beneficial than is generally perceived, and it can be inferred to be even less helpful in low-risk patients.

One of Dr. de Lorgeril's associates served as an expert in litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry (not involving rosuvastatin). Dr. Ray and an associate reported financial ties to the majority of companies that market lipid-lowering agents; other associates reported ties to Pfizer Inc., Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck & Co.

My Take Both Critiques Are On-Target These two critiques offer valuable insights and likely will reignite the long-simmering controversy over the use of statins as primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Dr. de Lorgeril's critical analysis highlights several anomalies in the JUPITER trial data. In particular, early termination of the study allowed for inflated estimates of benefits, understated harms, allowed the findings to be published earlier (and hence used to advantage in marketing), and reduced the cost of the trial—which all significantly benefited the industry sponsor and a financially invested research team.

Tens of billions of dollars of revenue for the sponsor over the patent life of the drug were at stake in the JUPITER trial, as well as potentially millions of dollars in royalties for the principal investigator. And with three-quarters of statin users taking the drugs for primary prevention, enormous revenues are at stake.

The analysis by de Lorgeril et al. clearly demonstrates why research must be free of incentives to find a particular desired result.

Dr. Ray's report presents what is to date the cleanest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of pharmacological lipid lowering for prevention.

The results make it clear that for primary prevention in the short term, statins' benefits are very small. And in the long term, although sincere advocates on both sides will try to convince us otherwise, we really must admit that we do not know.

LEE A. GREEN, M.D., is in the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. He reported no financial conflicts of interest. His comments appeared in an editorial (Arch. Intern. Med. 2010:170;1007-8).

From Archives of Internal Medicine

PII: S0300-7073(10)70742-8doi:10.1016/S0300-7073(10)70742-8

Dr. Judi here: Statin medications have a lot of side effects which have an insidious onset and are hard to tell that the statin is causing them, including muscle pain and memory loss.

Other studies have shown that the best benefit from statins comes from those with high cholesterol and high cardiac c-reactive protein between the ages of 40-60. It is interesting to note that the elderly do not receive benefit from lowering their cholesterol. In fact, those with the lowest cholesterol have higher death rates than those with higher cholesterol. So when your doctor tells you that the statin drugs are the new wonder drug, look at benefits vs. the risks, do some research, and determine what is best for you.

The following article was taken from Dr. Charles B. Simone's website, www.drsimone.com. Dr. Simone is an oncologist and immunologist who has practiced integrative medicine for his cancer patients for 40 years, and runs the Simone Protective Cancer Center. This article talks about the nutritional needs of the cancer patient, and the prevention of cancer through nutrition. I urge all to take serious note of the scientific studies he discusses that prove the importance of nutritional supplementation in the prevention and treatment of cancer.

While thoroughly engrossed in basic science at the National Cancer Institute as a Medical Oncologist and Tumor Immunologist, I found new direction as a result of contacts with cancer patients. One of my first patients was a Vice President of the United States who was dying of malnutrition secondary to his cancer-as do 40% of all cancer patients. Later, a man my own age with a rare cancer asked if I would keep him alive until he saw the birth of his child. Intensive chemotherapy cleaned out the cancer, but he failed to improve. As a last resort, I gave him high doses of antioxidants and other vitamins and minerals that quickly produced a seemingly miraculous, although temporary result. The man saw the birth of his child. Today's oncology care

Cancer will emerge as the number one cause of death in the United States by the year 2000. Despite the enormous effort to combat cancer, the number of new cases of nearly every form of cancer has increased annually over the last century. Still worse, from 1930 to the present, despite the introduction of radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy with biological response modifiers, despite CT scans, MR scans, and all the other new medical technology, lifespans for almost every form of adult cancer have remained constant, except cervical and lung cancer. This means, there has been no significant progress in cancer treatment.

Although chemotherapy and radiation therapy continue to have a role in cancer treatment, they produce morbidity. Nutritional modification, including the use of antioxidants and other nutrients, and proper lifestyle factors can dramatically decrease morbidity and side effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as well as increase response rates. Some reports have shown that nutritional and lifestyle modification can actually increase survival. It has been proven that chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy reduce the serum levels of certain nutrients, especially antioxidants. The decreased levels of these antioxidants result from lipid peroxidation.

Augmenting treatment with nutrients

Do vitamins and minerals interfere with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy? I am frequently asked this by patients because they have been advised not to take supplements during treatment. The scientific literature has clearly addressed this question:

1. The early clinical studies were performed at the National Cancer Institute using an antioxidant called N-acetyl cysteine that was found to protect the heart from the cardiac toxicity of adriamycin, but did not interfere with the tumor-killing capability of the drug. An antioxidant, dexrazoxane (ICRF-187), protects the heart from the effects of adriamycin without affecting the antitumor effect. Cellular studies, animal studies, and human studies demonstrate that vitamins A, E, C, and K, beta-carotene and selenium, as single agents or in combination, all protect against the toxicity of adriamycin and enhance its cancer-killing effects.

2. In vitro cellular studies and animal studies using vitamins C, A, K, E, D, B6, B12, beta-carotene, selenium, or cysteine as single agents or in combination given concomitantly with chemotherapy, or tamoxifen, or interferon alpha-2b, or radiation, or combinations of these modalities show the same effect: Increased tumor killing and increased protection of normal tissues.

3. Human studies involving over 1,960 patients have been done using single or multiple nutrients in combination with systemic treatment and/or radiation treatment demonstrating that nutrients produce a higher response rate, lower side effects, and even increased survival.

4. An increase in survival for cancer patients is uncommon with any treatment. But an increase in survival has been demonstrated for patients who received vitamin A or antioxidants in combination with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This finding was observed for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, breast cancer, gastric cancer, oral cavity cancer, and upper aerodigestive cancers. Patients who were given beta-carotene and anthaxanthin while undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation lived longer with an increase in disease-free intervals. And antioxidant treatment with chemotherapy and radiation prolonged survival for patients with small cell lung cancer compared with patients who did not receive antioxidants.

5. The effects of one chemotherapeutic agent, methotrexate, can be reversed with folinic acid, which is an analog of folic acid. Folic acid itself does not reverse methotrexate's effects. In order to reverse the effects of methotrexate, folinic acid has to be given in high doses. Folinic acid cannot be obtained over-the-counter. It is only available by prescription.

Antioxidants protect normal cells and other tissues by fighting free radicals and the oxidative reaction that is caused by free radicals. Antioxidant nutrients include beta-carotene, vitamins C and E, selenium, copper, zinc, bioflavonoids, and cysteine. There are now more than 200 studies that shown antioxidants can help decrease the risk of developing cancer.

One of the most recent investigations took place in Linxian, China. Researchers from the Cancer Institute of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences teamed up with researchers at the United States National Cancer Institute and studied nearly 30,000 adults, randomized over a five-year period into four different groups receiving different nutrients during that period. Here is a brief summary of the study:

It was the first large-scale intervention trial in a prospective randomized fashion to demonstrate that three antioxidant nutrients together-beta-carotene, vitamin E, and selenium-significantly reduced total mortality (9%) especially from all cancers (13%) and particularly stomach cancer (21%).

These antioxidant nutrients also prevented the risk of cancer in humans.

These antioxidant nutrients substantially reduced the prevalence of cataracts in the oldest patients (aged 65 to 74 years).

These antioxidant nutrients also reduced the mortality from stroke. Many other studies demonstrated similar findings, including the Finland Study, the Switzerland Study, the Hawaiian Study, and studies involving people at high risk for developing endometrial cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, small cell lung cancer, oral pharyngeal cancer, and others. All studies show that protection is conferred to those who consume antioxidants and other nutrients.

Studies of pre-cancerous conditions

Scores of studies, from all over the world, have shown that antioxidants can decrease the risk of pre-cancerous lesions from developing into a full-blown cancer.

The Linxian, China study investigated 3,300 patients with esophageal dysplasia which is a precursor to developing esophageal cancer. The same team of researchers from China and the United States examined the results of the study, which was an intervention study, the best type of clinical design. The group that received the multiple vitamin-mineral supplement daily for six years had:

lower mortality from esophageal and upper stomach cancers (8%) lower mortality rate in general (7%) lower rate of death from cancer in any site (4%) lower risk of dying of a stroke (38%)

While the duration of this trial was very short (six years) and the doses of the nutrients were far too low compared to other trials, the patients who took the supplements had much better results than the control group of patients who took no supplements. Other studies show that people who have colon polyps, abnormal cervical Pap smears, or other pre-cancerous conditions, all do better and can reverse the trend toward a cancer if they take certain antioxidants and other nutrients.

But what about beta-carotene specifically? There have been reports from the CARET and ATBC studies that beta-carotene increased the incidence of lung cancer in heavin heavy smokers who drank alcohol and were exposed to asbestos. I want to address this issue with the following thoughts:

1. Over 200 studies have demonstrated that beta-carotene is safe and can lower the risk of developing cancer and cardiovascular disease. 2. All intervention studies show that beta-carotene and other nutrients can decrease cancer rates and cancer progression. 3. A total of 22 epidemiological studies that included 400,000 smokers and nonsmokers have shown those who had a high blood level of beta-carotene had a lower incidence and mortality of lung cancer. None of these studies reported any association with an increased incidence of lung cancer. In fact, the reduction in risk was even more pronounced in smokers than in nonsmokers.4. The principal investigator has publicly said that the findings are too preliminary to discuss and the data were not statistically significant. 5. The smokers in these studies who had high beta carotene serum levels at the start of the study had the lowest incidence of lung cancer. 6. Most of the study participants were alcoholics, and all of them ate a high fat diet – both risk factors dramatically and independently increase the risk of developing cancer.. 7. beta carotene did not increase the risk of lung cancer for those who smoked less than 20 cigarettes a day and drank little or no alcohol. 8. To my knowledge, no information was gathered concerning other lifestyle risk factors that also would contribute to a poor outcome. 9. Beta-carotene works most efficiently at the early stages of carcinogenesis, not at the later stages when a cancer is already formed – as was the case with the patients in the CARET and ATBC studies. Cancers are started between 10 and 20 years before symptoms occur or our technology can detect them.

The fact remains, beta-carotene:

is the most powerful antioxidant. neutralizes singlet oxygen, a powerfully damaging chemical. enhances immune system function. is very safe and nontoxic.

It is important to rely on the synergism of all the antioxidants, including the carotenoids, and also the B’s, etc., as well as lifestyle changes to decrease one’s risk of cancer and heart disease. it is foolish to expect that a single nutrient can give the “green light” to continue lifestyle behavior that will cause disease.

Conclusion

Nutrition and lifestyle factors can profoundly reduce toxic side effects and improve the results of conventional treatments. In a recent study of 50 patients with early stage breast cancer, I evaluated the treatment side effects of radiation alone, or radiation combined with chemotherapy, while the patient took therapeutic doses of nutrients. Patients also followed the Simone Ten Point Plan (see Table 1). The patients were asked to evaluate their own response to the treatment in terms of impacts of treatment on their quality of life. The major rationale behind our nutritional plan is that it contains a well-rounded supply of antioxidants and immune enhancing nutrients. The results of the study were impressive:

1. More than 90% of both groups noted improvement in their physical symptoms, cognitive ability, performance, sexual dysfunction, general well-being, and life satisfaction. 2. Not one subject in either group reported a worsening of symptoms. Patients who follow the Ten Point Plan and use certain vitamins andminerals report few side effects from chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Twenty studies with more than 2,700 patients that investigated lifestyle modification that includes dietary changes, nutrient supplementation, and other lifestyle changes demonstrated a lower recurrence rate and an increase in survival. The patients in these studies had the following cancers: breast, ovarian, cervical, uterine, head and neck, lung, pancreatic, prostate, and bladder.

Cancer patients should modify their lifestyles using the Ten Point Plan, which includes modifying nutritional factors and taking certain vitamins and minerals, especially if they are receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation. The studies indicate that it is important to take the correct nutrients to reduce side effects, enhance conventional therapies, and increase outcomes (table 2).

Beta carotene = 20 to 30 mg per day Lutein = 10 TO 25 mcg per day Lycopene = 10 TO 25 mcg per day Vitamin E = 400 to 600 IU per day Vitamin C = 350 to 6,000 mg per day Bioflavonoids = 10 to 20 mg per day Selenium = 200 to 300 mcg per day Zinc = 15 to 20 mg per day Copper = 3 to 5 mg per day Cysteine = 20 to 500 mg per day Vitamin A = 5,000 to 7,500 IU per day Vitamin D = 400 to 600 IU per day Vitamin B1 = 10 mg per day Vitamin B2 = 10 mg per day Vitamin B6 = 10 mg per day Vitamin B12 = 18 mcg per day Niacinamide = 40 mg per day Biotin = 150 mcg per day Pantothenic acid = 20 mg per day Folic acid = 400 mcg per day Iodine = 150 mcg per day Chromium = 125 mcg per day

Sunday, September 5, 2010

This is taken from Bottom Line Secrets and I thought it was worth reading:

The Perfect 10 Diet

Michael Aziz, MDAmerican Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Like most physicians, I used to advise overweight patients to follow the American Heart Association’s low-fat guidelines, but most of these patients continued to gain. After years of research, I discovered that most diets fail because they don’t take into account the hormones that regulate appetite and control weight.

The body contains more than 100 hormones, substances that regulate bodily functions. People who maintain an optimal hormonal balance are more likely to maintain a healthy weight than those who count calories.

Overall, I have found that the diet that is best for hormone optimization has 40% carbohydrates (vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grains)... 40% fat (saturated fats from dairy products, coconut and palm oils, and monounsaturated fats in olive oil, avocados and nuts)... and 20% protein (eggs, fish, shellfish and poultry, plus red meat in moderation).

Many people are surprised that I recommend eating saturated fats. Probably the single greatest nutritional myth of past decades has been that saturated fat is unhealthful. Eating foods rich in saturated fat boosts the production of anti-aging hormones, including estrogen, progesterone and testosterone.

The important hormones* for weight control and how to regulate them...

Insulin

Up to 75% of American adults produce too much insulin. This increases appetite and leads to obesity as well as diabetes.

What happens: A low-fat diet with excess carbohydrates causes the pancreas to overproduce insulin. Excess insulin increases fat storage and makes it extremely difficult to lose weight. Solution: A diet high in natural foods (whole grains, vegetables, fish, etc.) with a minimum of processed carbohydrates. Also helpful: One to two tablespoons of brewer’s yeast daily. It’s high in chromium, a trace mineral that reduces blood sugar and improves glucose tolerance. Better glucose tolerance reduces the amount of insulin that is produced by the pancreas.

Glucagon

Levels of glucagon (glu-ca-gon) rise when insulin is low. Unlike insulin, which transports the sugar in blood into the body’s cells, glucagon pulls sugars out of storage to provide energy. It melts away fat in the process.

What happens: Glucagon and insulin can’t be present in large amounts simultaneously, because they have opposing actions. If your insulin levels are high, your levels of glucagon will always be low. Solution: Limit yourself to three meals a day. It was once thought that "grazing" (having frequent small meals) would help people lose weight. This style of eating promotes weight gain because it elevates insulin and depresses glucagon.

Leptin

The hormone leptin is secreted by fat cells and is the main hormone that controls satiety, the feeling of fullness after eating.

What happens: People who produce too little leptin -- or, paradoxically, too much -- tend to gain weight because they’re hungry all the time. A diet high in processed foods, particularly those that contain trans fatty acids or high-fructose corn syrup, causes the body to burn fewer calories and store fat even in the presence of leptin. Solution: A diet high in natural fats, such as the omega-3 fatty acids in fish, along with whole grains, vegetables and fruits.

Thyroid

About 25 million Americans suffer from hypothyroidism, an underactive thyroid gland. This lowers the body’s metabolism and can lead to obesity -- even in people who don’t eat very much.

Hypothyroidism is an autoimmune disease that requires medical care, but it can be exacerbated by a poor diet. What happens: People who follow a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet often develop low thyroid hormone levels. So do people who eat mainly processed foods. Iodine from excess salt blocks enzymes that produce thyroid hormones. Solution: Use sea salt instead of regular salt. It contains less iodine. Eat sea vegetables (such as wakame and nori) at least twice a week. They contain just enough iodine to help you maintain optimal thyroid function. Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables -- they enhance the body’s production of thyroxine, the active form of thyroid hormone.

Human Growth Hormone (HGH)

HGH is produced by the pituitary gland to promote the growth and repair of muscle tissue.

What happens: People who don’t produce enough HGH tend to have less muscle and more body fat. Excess body fat further depresses HGH. Solution: As with glucagon, HGH rises when people eat less frequently. Eat just three meals a day. Also helpful: Eat eggs, poultry or fish most days. These foods increase HGH. Get a good night’s sleep. Most of the body’s HGH is produced during sleep.

Cortisol

Cortisol is a stress hormone because it rises during times of stress. In our high-stress society, virtually everyone has elevated levels of cortisol.

What happens: It promotes the storage of fat, particularly the dangerous visceral (belly) fat.Solution: Maintain your emotional equilibrium with activities such as yoga and meditation. Also, people who eat natural foods and avoid processed foods tend to have healthier cortisol levels.

Sex Hormones

Men start producing less testosterone at about age 20, while women have a sharp drop in estrogen and progesterone as they approach menopause. It’s not a coincidence that most people start to gain weight when levels of these hormones decline.

What happens: Declines in sex hormones are a natural, age-related phenomenon. But excessive drops in these hormones usually are caused by too much sugar in the diet and lack of natural fats, such as butter, along with lifestyle factors, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. Solutions: Men and women can improve their hormonal profiles by exercising regularly... not smoking... and drinking alcohol only in moderation (no more than two drinks daily for men and one for women). Also important: Drink less coffee. Caffeine lowers testosterone. Women can maintain a healthier estrogen/progesterone balance by eating high-quality proteins and fats (from eggs, butter, whole milk and poultry) at least once a day. The same foods will help increase testosterone in men.

DHEA

DHEA is the "precursor" hormone produced by the adrenal gland that the body uses to manufacture other hormones, including estrogen and testosterone.

What happens: People who drink too much coffee or eat margarine or other foods that contain trans fats tend to have lower levels of DHEA. Processed carbohydrates, including white bread, also can cause DHEA to decline. Solution: Avoid processed foods, and eat some saturated fat most days of the week. This will help increase the body’s production of DHEA.

Also... Limit yourself to three meals a day (avoid snacking).Have one to two tablespoons of brewer’s yeast daily.If you have low thyroid, eat sea vegetables twice a week and choose sea salt over regular iodized salt.Reduce stress with yoga and meditation.Get regular exercise.Limit alcohol and caffeine, and don’t smoke.Get a good night’s sleep.

*Few physicians routinely test all of these hormones in overweight patients. To find a specialist in your area who uses this approach, go to the Web site of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine at www.WorldHealth.net.

Bottom Line/Personal interviewed Michael Aziz, MD, founder and director of Midtown Integrative Medicine, which blends traditional and complementary therapies. He is an internist and attending physician at St. Vincent’s Hospital in New York City, where he also maintains a private practice. He is author of The Perfect 10 Diet (Cumberland House). www.Perfect10Diet.com.

This is Dr. Judi again: If a person is able to eat a palm size piece of protein, including red meat and eggs, along with plenty of vegetables and some fruit at their meals, their blood sugars will maintain between meals. However, if the diet isn't quite that healthy, eating a healthy snack between meals is important to keep the blood sugar up and maintain brain function until the blood sugar/insulin/glucagon levels begin to stabilize.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR DR. JUDI?

Go to the end of the latest blog and click on "comments." You can ask your question there. Please remember all questions/comments will be posted publicly as part of my blog (you may choose to post anonymously if your question has sensitive information).